Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

martissimo:Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Bathia_Mapes:martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

RTA. A police officer saw him eat the joint.

No. The police officer saw him eat what he assumed was a joint. It could have just as easily been an herbal supplement.

Alaska law allows a person to possess less than four ounces of marijuana (plant or dried) in the home, but not in public.

But he can get up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine (On the tax payers dime) for eating the joint. Seems a little overkill to me. Do you really think he's going to have the $50,000 to pay the fine? That's going to be a write off.

Pud:Alaska law allows a person to possess less than four ounces of marijuana (plant or dried) in the home, but not in public.

But he can get up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine (On the tax payers dime) for eating the joint. Seems a little overkill to me. Do you really think he's going to have the $50,000 to pay the fine? That's going to be a write off.

Write off for whom? Seems like an easy way to print money for local law enforcement. Write something on a $1 piece of paper that says $50000 fine. But I'll take $2000 instead. Easy money.

Bathia_Mapes:martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Day_Old_Dutchie:Bathia_Mapes: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

FTA: "People don't understand that having the marijuana is a class 'B' misdemeanor, which is like one step above running a red light. Then when they destroy it, and they're tampering with physical evidence, that's a higher charge," Campbell said.

And that right there pretty much describes one of the biggest problems with our legal system - People don't understand 95% of the arbitrary BS that can mean the difference between a small fine and 5 years in prison.

If the people don't understand the law, the law, not the people, needs to change.

pla:FTA: "People don't understand that having the marijuana is a class 'B' misdemeanor, which is like one step above running a red light. Then when they destroy it, and they're tampering with physical evidence, that's a higher charge," Campbell said.

And that right there pretty much describes one of the biggest problems with our legal system - People don't understand 95% of the arbitrary BS that can mean the difference between a small fine and 5 years in prison.

If the people don't understand the law, the law, not the people, needs to change.

If people can't grasp the basic concept that lying to cover up a crime is usually worse than the crime itself, we are done as a society.

Cataholic:pla: FTA: "People don't understand that having the marijuana is a class 'B' misdemeanor, which is like one step above running a red light. Then when they destroy it, and they're tampering with physical evidence, that's a higher charge," Campbell said.

And that right there pretty much describes one of the biggest problems with our legal system - People don't understand 95% of the arbitrary BS that can mean the difference between a small fine and 5 years in prison.

If the people don't understand the law, the law, not the people, needs to change.

If people can't grasp the basic concept that lying to cover up a crime is usually worse than the crime itself, we are done as a society.

Vodka Zombie:Bathia_Mapes: martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

RTA. A police officer saw him eat the joint.

No. The police officer saw him eat what he assumed was a joint. It could have just as easily been an herbal supplement.

/Yeah. I've been catching up on Breaking Bad episodes.

No officer that was the stick from a fun dip that I was eating because I'm high from that joint I just smoked AT HOME.

Couldn't the cops even argue that smoking the joint when they catch you constitutes tampering?

martissimo:Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

martissimo:Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Lawyer ? ? ? Fark it must suck to live in a shiat hole red state. Here in NY I had to go to traffic court and the guy in front of me got caught with half an ounce of weed during a traffic stop. The judge told him to get out of his court and then made a remark about how he wished the pigs would stop wasting his time with pot violations. No fine. Not even a ticket.

Cataholic:pla: FTA: "People don't understand that having the marijuana is a class 'B' misdemeanor, which is like one step above running a red light. Then when they destroy it, and they're tampering with physical evidence, that's a higher charge," Campbell said.

And that right there pretty much describes one of the biggest problems with our legal system - People don't understand 95% of the arbitrary BS that can mean the difference between a small fine and 5 years in prison.

If the people don't understand the law, the law, not the people, needs to change.

If people can't grasp the basic concept that lying to cover up a crime is usually worse than the crime itself, we are done as a society.

I think I know where you were going, but I'll bet that lying to cover up is nearly never worse. Lying about murder, drunk driving, stealing, drug smuggling... the only ones I could come up with where lying IS worse is like parking violations or not mowing my lawn.

CheatCommando:BolloxReader: /most of 'em that I know are NOT down with this sort of mentality

Odd, because they seem to overwhelmingly vote for the party that epitomizes this mentality. One would think that they agree with it based on their concrete actions instead of easily denied words.

A lot of former military that I know are very angry at the federal government. They go out and play at training with paintball guns in outdoor settings for when they get to shoot ATF and other various agencies They are advocates for local control rather than federal control, whereas they believe that liberals want the federal government to dictate everything and turn the military out against them.

They also believe that the federal government has 500,000 troops from overseas at Camp Atterbury in Bartholomew County, IN that are kept and supplied from belowground and have been there since 2009. "My cousin was stationed there and he wouldn't lie!" Um, it's a mostly abandoned proving ground that was partially rehabilitiated to support Guard units mobilized for overseas duty. I was there for a marathon a couple years ago, every building I saw was decayed and the roads were mostly empty. Not sure how one supplies 500,000 soldiers from "underground." They must have one hell of a septic system.

But the Democrats don't promise to protect them from the UN troops, or talk about "second amendment solutions." Instead, the Democrats talk about disarming the populace. So they don't vote Democrat. Instead they hope that the Tea Party will save the country from both establishment Republicans and Democrats.

Loren:martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

Since the cops had a reasonable belief that the defendant was destroying evidence they could have detained him, got a warrant for his stomach contents, and had a hospital pump his stomach. That would have been legal.... since they didn't do that they have no case as long as the defendant shut the farks up.

Loren:martissimo: Unless he was stupid enough to tell the cop "yeah I ate that joint, sorry", a competent lawyer gets him off with that same 2k charge (in lawyers fees instead), but without the felony conviction and up to 90 days part.

Not like they went Cheech and Chong labrador sketch style and got any evidence, could have easily been the end of a candy cane for instance

Agreed. How can the cop prove he destroyed evidence?

He can simply testify as to what he saw. Remember, they don't have to prove that it was a joint. They only have to prove that the defendant swallowed something that would have been evidence in a proceeding or investigation (even if the evidence would have exonerated him).

My personal favorite Cops episode (the only thing other than infomercials that used to be on in the wee hours), was some upstanding gentleman who swore up and down to the officer that he had in no way been in possession or smoking marijuana, despite having a joint tucked in his ear the entire time. He had sincerely forgotten about it, and was ashamed when the cop pointed it out to him.

Pud:Alaska law allows a person to possess less than four ounces of marijuana (plant or dried) in the home, but not in public.

But he can get up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine (On the tax payers dime) for eating the joint. Seems a little overkill to me. Do you really think he's going to have the $50,000 to pay the fine? That's going to be a write off.

And the court system is going to waste how much of NOT THEIR MONEY to prosecute this?And this improves the planet and the species, eh?